Content
82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable hunt skill with executable queries and a clear, well-sequenced workflow. It is concise and well-organized, with only minor redundancy and the absence of explicit validation feedback loops limiting the top scores.
Suggestions
Consider merging or trimming the 'Key Indicators' table, since its rows restate information already conveyed by the inline UDM queries.
Add an explicit validation/checkpoint step (e.g., verify query result counts or sanity-check IOC enrichment) before escalating to incident response, to strengthen workflow feedback loops.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean with dense, useful inline UDM queries and a one-line intro, but the 'Key Indicators' table partially duplicates the query content, keeping it just below the fully efficient score-5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready, fully executable UDM queries and concrete MCP tool calls with parameters and a placeholder table, covering the common lateral-movement cases as the score-5 anchor describes. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight clearly sequenced steps with conditional branching (e.g., 'If suspicious process activity found, correlate with network'), but lacks explicit validate-and-retry checkpoints, fitting the score-4 anchor rather than the score-5 anchor with feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections (Inputs, Workflow, Required Outputs, Key Indicators) with no nested references and appropriate delegation to other skills, but as a single ~150-line file with no file splitting it sits at the score-4 'good structure' anchor rather than score-5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |